No social housing

Can't believer there hasn't been a thread on AH about this already

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0116/845263-merrion-square-development.

The Unite trade union has put it in a planning application for its former headquarters which sought exemption from the social housing regulations.

Unite's Brendan Ogle was involved in the Apollo house occupation.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Nothing involving Mr. Ogle would surprise me.

Gatling

They Unite are claiming it wasn't them ,it was someone else who applied for the exemption

The flying mouse

It just goes to reinstate my belief that once people get to the top of there Trees, in there relative organisations, be it church, state, politicians of all party's and trade unions leaders etc etc , they forget why & who put them there. They then run for what's best for themselves and not best for who they represent.

jameorahiely

Gatling wrote: »

They Unite are claiming it wasn't them ,it was someone else who applied for the exemption

The shaggy defence
Wasn't me

FTA69

As someone who works for Unite, if the union knowingly did that then they're a disgrace for doing so. However, the fact that Unite may or may not have tried to shake a planning application doesn't mean Ogle was a part of it or had any knowledge of it. Unite is a union of 1.5m members with tens of thousands of staff, officers and organisers aren't at all privy to what happens regarding unions assets and buildings etc.

That having been said, I'd take half of what's on the Irish media with a pinch of salt and it's a gas coincidence this has come about at the same time certain establishment figures have been embarassed publically on the issue of homelessness in Ireland and how much of a f*ck up NAMA was.

Unite is well capable of doing the b*llocks, I see it myself every day but I must ask around about what happened in this case.

Harry Palmr

No social housing is a bigger issue than this particular story (if it is one), in the post war era when this state hardly had two pennies to rub together public housing was built. In the 21st century it's hardly done at all.

Gatling

FTA69 wrote: »

As someone who works for Unite, if the union knowingly did that then they're a disgrace for doing so. However, the fact that Unite may or may not have tried to shake a planning application doesn't mean Ogle was a part of it or had any knowledge of it. Unite is a union of 1.5m members with tens of thousands of staff, officers and organisers aren't at all privy to what happens regarding unions assets and buildings etc.

If it was done intentionally would their be blacklash from members and employees like yourself

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

The shaggy defence
Wasn't me

The exemption application was made by a company called 'Unite the Union Trustee Company', which like the union itself, is based in London. I support unions but have a strong dislike of this sort of thing what about having values

homerjay2005

we hear people whinging every day now about lack of social housing yet when it comes to putting social housing in various parts of the city, everybody is objecting against it.

bunch of hypocrites.

jameorahiely

mariaalice wrote: »

The exemption application was made by a company called 'Unite the Union Trustee Company', which like the union itself, is based in London. I support unions but have a strong dislike of this sort of thing what about having values

They used a company in belfast to apply for the planning to change the offices in to 6 apartments

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3937/15&theTabNo=1&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=3290558%26StartIndex=51%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=wphappsresweek2%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E'%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

Spanish Eyes

Well it is in Merrion Square, so what the heck do you all expect really?

Let those who can afford Merrion Sq pay for the apartments, but as a taxpayer I would think it ridiculous that a social tenant could avail of this top location. Sorry.

Unite should have sold the premises and built a mix of private and social housing. But that would not bring in much loot now would it?

Any response from the Union about this yet does anyone know?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Social housing is needed but not in prime locations

Dyr

Gatling wrote: »

If it was done intentionally would their be blacklash from members and employees like yourself

I'm a unite member and my attitude would be that the sooner they get shot of that building in merrion square the more I'll like it, its been tied up in legal rigmarole for years now. I could care less about exemptions for that yoke

FTA69

Right, I was curious about this so sent a buddy of mine a message to see what the craic was; he's an active lay member of Unite based in Dublin. By the way I'm only putting forward my own thinking and what was said to me, I'm not providing some official inside track commentary - I don't know what f*ck is going on half the time with Unite in my own office never mind Ireland.

Couple of things, Apollo House was targeted specifically as a political action to raise awareness of homelessness and also importantly to shine a light on the NAMA fiasco about how publicly paid for buildings are allowed to be left rot. In other words, Apollo House would have happened regardless.

Now, on to Unite. The building in question was an 8 room Georgian building; Unite were going to turn it into four flats. The social housing quota for development is 10%; as you may guess it's impossible to allocate 10% of 4 flats to social housing, that's the reason why they were exempt. Apparently you have to state this exemption on the planning as a matter of course or it gets rejected.

I was under the illusion they were throwing up a block of flats like. Pure non story as I suspected.

jameorahiely

FTA69 wrote: »

Right, I was curious about this so sent a buddy of mine a message to see what the craic was; he's an active lay member of Unite based in Dublin. By the way I'm only putting forward my own thinking and what was said to me, I'm not providing some official inside track commentary - I don't know what f*ck is going on half the time with Unite in my own office never mind Ireland.

Couple of things, Apollo House was targeted specifically as a political action to raise awareness of homelessness and also importantly to shine a light on the NAMA fiasco about how publicly paid for buildings are allowed to be left rot. In other words, Apollo House would have happened regardless.

Now, on to Unite. The building in question was an 8 room Georgian building; Unite were going to turn it into four flats. The social housing quota for development is 10%; as you may guess it's impossible to allocate 10% of 4 flats to social housing, that's the reason why they were exempt. Apparently you have to state this exemption on the planning as a matter of course or it gets rejected.

I was under the illusion they were throwing up a block of flats like. Pure non story as I suspected.

12 apartments 10% would be 1.This is the same building? 15 merrion square. Where have the ither 8 apartments disappeared to?




PROTECTED STRUCTURE: The proposals shall consist of the internal reconfiguration and change of use of the basement, ground and upper floor areas of the existing Georgian protected structure into apartments and new build apartment accommodation to the rear of the site, facing onto Denzille Lane. Works to the existing protected structure are to facilitate a material change of use from offices to residential use, and will provide 6 no. apartments. The new build accommodation will provide a further 6 no. apartments with associated car parking at ground level. A landscaped amenity garden area is to be located between the existing and new build accommodation.

FTA69

jameorahiely wrote: »

12 apartments 10% would be 1.This is the same building? 15 merrion square. Where have the ither 8 apartments disappeared to?




PROTECTED STRUCTURE: The proposals shall consist of the internal reconfiguration and change of use of the basement, ground and upper floor areas of the existing Georgian protected structure into apartments and new build apartment accommodation to the rear of the site, facing onto Denzille Lane. Works to the existing protected structure are to facilitate a material change of use from offices to residential use, and will provide 6 no. apartments. The new build accommodation will provide a further 6 no. apartments with associated car parking at ground level. A landscaped amenity garden area is to be located between the existing and new build accommodation.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0116/845263-merrion-square-development/

RTÉ is saying it's four flats?

Dyr

jameorahiely wrote: »

12 apartments 10% would be 1.This is the same building? 15 merrion square. Where have the ither 8 apartments disappeared to?




PROTECTED STRUCTURE: The proposals shall consist of the internal reconfiguration and change of use of the basement, ground and upper floor areas of the existing Georgian protected structure into apartments and new build apartment accommodation to the rear of the site, facing onto Denzille Lane. Works to the existing protected structure are to facilitate a material change of use from offices to residential use, and will provide 6 no. apartments. The new build accommodation will provide a further 6 no. apartments with associated car parking at ground level. A landscaped amenity garden area is to be located between the existing and new build accommodation.

Ever been in that building?

jameorahiely

FTA69 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0116/845263-merrion-square-development/

RTÉ is saying it's four flats?

RTE says "three three-bed and one one-bed apartments"


Still 2 missing!?!

FTA69

jameorahiely wrote: »

RTE says "three three-bed and one one-bed apartments"


Still 2 missing!?!

Yeah 3 3-beds and 1 one-bed is four flats mate.

jameorahiely

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah 3 3-beds and 1 one-bed is four flats mate.

Oops yes, you're correct. Don't know what I was multiplying. 4 apartments, yet the planning says 12, strange

FTA69

jameorahiely wrote: »

Oops yes, you're correct. Don't know what I was multiplying. 4 apartments, yet the planning says 12, strange

I honestly haven't a clue like, you may well be right as well. But all I know is RTÉ broke this "story" about evil Unite screwing the council out of social housing and then they themselves go on to say the latest planning application is to 1) keep the Georgian part as a single house and 2) turn the rest into four flats. Which would make 5 homes in total which is way off the social housing criterion.

Stink of sh*te off it, funny enough the story only comes out now too.

jimmycrackcorm

FTA69 wrote:

As someone who works for Unite, if the union knowingly did that then they're a disgrace for doing so. However, the fact that Unite may or may not have tried to shake a planning application doesn't mean Ogle was a part of it or had any knowledge of it. Unite is a union of 1.5m members with tens of thousands of staff, officers and organisers aren't at all privy to what happens regarding unions assets and buildings etc.

Perhaps Ogle should spend more time on his union activities if he isn't aware.

FTA69 wrote:

Now, on to Unite. The building in question was an 8 room Georgian building; Unite were going to turn it into four flats. The social housing quota for development is 10%; as you may guess it's impossible to allocate 10% of 4 flats to social housing, that's the reason why they were exempt. Apparently you have to state this exemption on the planning as a matter of course or it gets rejected.

The building was lying empty for three years yet Ogle didn't think that it can be used for social housing or for the homeless. Grand Nimbyism.

Tigger

Bria Witty Streetlight wrote: »

Nothing involving Mr. Ogle would surprise me.

he's clearly got no friends in low places

pjproby

Even if it was 4 apartments why could one not be allocated to social housing?

FTA69

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Perhaps Ogle should spend more time on his union activities if he isn't aware

I'm sure Unite and the members are very happy with Brendan to be honest. Similarly Ogle is an officer, people like himself have nothing to do with things like asset management, administration etc. It's a massive organisation headquartered in London, the above sort of thing has nothing to do with people in his position.

The building was lying empty for three years yet Ogle didn't think that it can be used for social housing or for the homeless. Grand Nimbyism.

1) Merrion Square has Nothing to do with Ogle.
2) It's not up to Unite, Glen Hansard, Man on the Moon or whoever to house the homeless - it's up to the government to make that provision. Through NAMA, we in effect paid for and took ownership over huge amounts of property that was going to waste and sold back to the developers for a pittance after we bailed them out. That's what Apollo House was drawing attention to.
3) The Unite office didn't meet the criterion for social housing at all, it's a tiny development of four flats thus the RTÉ 'story' was a load of contrived messing and that's obvious to anyone who looks at this case.

You're only labouring this non point because you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over Brendan Ogle.

Wheeliebin30

FTA69 wrote: »

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm sure Unite and the members are very happy with Brendan to be honest. Similarly Ogle is an officer, people like himself have nothing to do with things like asset management, administration etc. It's a massive organisation headquartered in London, the above sort of thing has nothing to do with people in his position.



1) Merrion Square has Nothing to do with Ogle.
2) It's not up to Unite, Glen Hansard, Man on the Moon or whoever to house the homeless - it's up to the government to make that provision. Through NAMA, we in effect paid for and took ownership over huge amounts of property that was going to waste and sold back to the developers for a pittance after we bailed them out. That's what Apollo House was drawing attention to.
3) The Unite office didn't meet the criterion for social housing at all, it's a tiny development of four flats thus the RTÉ 'story' was a load of contrived messing and that's obvious to anyone who looks at this case.

You're only labouring this non point because you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over Brendan Ogle.

Why does he think his building should be excempt from the social housing rules?

Brian?

The policy of the private sector providing social housing is ludicrous to begin with. The State hasn't built enough social housing to satisfy the demand in 40 years.

If the buckets of stamp duty collected during the Celtic Tiger had been used to build even a modicum of social housing we wouldn't be in a crisis now. Instead of changing a system that clearly doesn't work the lunacy continues.

10% of 4 flats is impossible to deliver. This is a non story, hatchet job on Unite. It's a classic tactic, whip up hatred towards an evil trade union to distract from government incompetence.

FTA69

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

Why does he think his building should be excempt from the social housing rules?

Jesus this is like pulling teeth. Previous levels of social housing obligation was 20%; alleged Labour politician Alan Kelly cut this to 10%.

Unite's former property is being made into four flats. It is impossible to deliver 0.4% of a flat for social housing; even under the old rules they'd have been exempt.

In other words, the rules don't apply to developments less than ten as it would be impossible to deliver.

As Brian has astutely pointed out, this is a non-story and hatchet job and don't hold your breath for RTÉ to clarify the messing and/or grill the government about their failure to build any social housing when we so desperately need it.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

I honestly haven't a clue like, you may well be right as well. But all I know is RTÉ broke this "story" about evil Unite screwing the council out of social housing and then they themselves go on to say the latest planning application is to 1) keep the Georgian part as a single house and 2) turn the rest into four flats. Which would make 5 homes in total which is way off the social housing criterion.

Stink of sh*te off it, funny enough the story only comes out now too.

Theres nothing stinking about it, the fact is they had an empty building they could have used indefinitely but instead chose to go for a building that was nothing but a PR stunt that had to fail and the people would always have been evicted from

FTA69

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres nothing stinking about it, the fact is they had an empty building they could have used indefinitely but instead chose to go for a building that was nothing but a PR stunt that had to fail and the people would always have been evicted from

Big difference between an 8 room house and a huge building like Apollo House with multiple washing facilities and a kitchen.

Likewise, for the umpteenth time, it isn't up to Unite to deal with homelessness provision it's the governments. Apollo House was a political action aimed at highlighting the NAMA debacle and the crisis itself. And it was a very successful one judging by the eagerness of some people in the media to engage in hatchet job non-stories. As for being a failure? Lol. They were never off the news and all those dwelling in Apollo got offered long stretch accommodation with their own keys.

Some failure.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Jesus this is like pulling teeth. Previous levels of social housing obligation was 20%; alleged Labour politician Alan Kelly cut this to 10%.

Unite's former property is being made into four flats. It is impossible to deliver 0.4% of a flat for social housing; even under the old rules they'd have been exempt.

In other words, the rules don't apply to developments less than ten as it would be impossible to deliver.

As Brian has astutely pointed out, this is a non-story and hatchet job and don't hold your breath for RTÉ to clarify the messing and/or grill the government about their failure to build any social housing when we so desperately need it.

Ahhh yes cus its the government that have been attempting to vote down housing

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-councillors-approve-plans-for-nearly-1-700-homes-1.2930705

And nothing to do with the populist opposition

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/critic-of-housing-crisis-says-no-to-300-homes-lhc7dkmw5

andekwarhola

pjproby wrote: »

Even if it was 4 apartments why could one not be allocated to social housing?

To be fair, it's obvious that the measure was brought in with larger scale private housing developments in mind, not once-off conversion type builds like this. Allocating a rental apartment in such a location would be a cosmetic and largely futile exercise and not an efficent use of local authority funding.

Was ironic to see the local authorities recently being pilloried for refusing NAMA stock to lower social housing homogeneity but also usually being savaged by the same people for the ignored social issues that unchecked late 70s/early 80s local authority housing sprawls have caused.

The integrated housing model is a good one in theory, I feel. The only major issue is that it's dependant on the vagaries of the private housing development cycle.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

Big difference between an 8 room house and a huge building like Apollo House with multiple washing facilities and a kitchen.

Likewise, for the umpteenth time, it isn't up to Unite to deal with homelessness provision it's the governments. Apollo House was a political action aimed at highlighting the NAMA debacle and the crisis itself. And it was a very successful one judging by the eagerness of some people in the media to engage in hatchet job non-stories. As for being a failure? Lol. They were never off the news and all those dwelling in Apollo got offered long stretch accommodation with their own keys.

Some failure.

Well actually since they have decided to weigh in and sanction the HSH organisation under their union banner using "union legislation" or whatever garbage they said it now very much is their responsibility as well.

Im not saying the government are blameless but Unite and Ogle are completely in the wrong here as well and have been caught out for the sham that apollo house and their involvement in it was.

Wheres the 170k ehh?

musiknonstop

10% is a minimum. They could have gone over that. It all sounds sounds very neo-liberal to me.

Brian? wrote: »

10% of 4 flats is impossible to deliver. This is a non story, hatchet job on Unite. It's a classic tactic, whip up hatred towards an evil trade union to distract from government incompetence.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/unite-plans-for-merrion-square-34195401.html

[Unite] has just applied for planning permission to convert a building on Dublin's exclusive Merrion Square from an office into six apartments.

And it wants to build an extension out the back to add on another six.

corner of hells

FTA69 wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres nothing stinking about it, the fact is they had an empty building they could have used indefinitely but instead chose to go for a building that was nothing but a PR stunt that had to fail and the people would always have been evicted from

Big difference between an 8 room house and a huge building like Apollo House with multiple washing facilities and a kitchen.

Likewise, for the umpteenth time, it isn't up to Unite to deal with homelessness provision it's the governments. Apollo House was a political action aimed at highlighting the NAMA debacle and the crisis itself. And it was a very successful one judging by the eagerness of some people in the media to engage in hatchet job non-stories. As for being a failure? Lol. They were never off the news and all those dwelling in Apollo got offered long stretch accommodation with their own keys.

Some failure.

I'm saying this as someone who works in frontline homeless services , there has been so many false truths and misinformation created by the events following the Apollo house occupations.

These individuals who were presented as being homeless are now appearing in homeless accommodation and presenting as special cases wanting to go directly in housing without engaging with services properly because of being fed misinformation.
As far as I know none got " thier own accommodation with keys" , with attempts being made to segregate themselves from homeless with addictions , mental ill health , long term rough sleeping and present themselves as being different.
The reality being some individuals used these people as pawns to massage thier own egos.

FTA69

VinLieger wrote: »

Well actually since they have decided to weigh in and sanction the HSH organisation under their union banner using "union legislation" or whatever garbage they said it now very much is their responsibility as well.

Im not saying the government are blameless but Unite and Ogle are completely in the wrong here as well and have been caught out for the sham that apollo house and their involvement in it was.

Wheres the 170k ehh?

You're waffling now to be honest. I mean what is your point exactly? As I said above; Apollo House was a political action to highlight NAMA and homelessness and it was a rip roaring success that garnered international attention and ended up securing provision for 40 odd people they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Likewise, despite RTE bollocks, Unite have been shown not to be shirking anything whatsoever on the social housing front. As was said above, it isn't Unite's responsibility to engage in homelessness provision at all - it's the governments and Home Sweet Home exposed their failure utterly.

All in all, a great citizen's initiative; it's just a shame certain Blueshirt types get into a tizzy over it but there you go.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

You're waffling now to be honest. I mean what is your point exactly? As I said above; Apollo House was a political action to highlight NAMA and homelessness and it was a rip roaring success that garnered international attention and ended up securing provision for 40 odd people they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Likewise, despite RTE bollocks, Unite have been shown not to be shirking anything whatsoever on the social housing front. As was said above, it isn't Unite's responsibility to engage in homelessness provision at all - it's the governments and Home Sweet Home exposed their failure utterly.

All in all, a great citizen's initiative; it's just a shame certain Blueshirt types get into a tizzy over it but there you go.

Ahh typical when your backed into a corner resort to petty attempts at namecalling, people who default to calling everyone that disagree with them blueshirts are just showing they are simply unable to have a reasonable discussion. I bet you'll be calling me and others alt right next cus I disagree with you on this one specific issue that really has nothing to do with the political spectrum at all. I hate homlessness and that it exists but its far more complex and difficult to solve than HSH and Ogle like to make it out, I also hate others using people to further their own selfish ends which is all brendan ogle is about

You want to engage on this topic and actually discuss it then grow up and maybe engage on the issue like your claim the government is doing nothing yet opposition parties are the ones attempting to block new housing all over the city?

FTA69

I didn't call you anything; I said you were waffling from one point to the next and it's clear you're just attempting to throw any sh*te you can at either Ogle, Unite or HSH. As for being backed into a corner? You're the one who gleefully jumped on a hatchet story about Unite apparently shirking the social housing despite them being well below the exemption percentage and not in a position to provide any social housing at all. You then jumped on this other silly notion that it's the responsibility of a union to provide for the homeless as opposed to the government.

And now you're banging on about Clare Daly and housing in Dublin in general which is well off the topic at hand. "Backed into a corner" my arse. All you're doing is flitting from one tangent to another.

Without getting too off-topic, I imagine Daly's problem was the state bulldozing council properties to make way for private homes that will be sold by developers at unaffordable prices. Something that will exacerbate the housing cross of anything.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

I didn't call you anything; I said you were waffling from one point to the next and it's clear you're just attempting to throw any sh*te you can at either Ogle, Unite or HSH. As for being backed into a corner? You're the one who gleefully jumped on a hatchet story about Unite apparently shirking the social housing despite them being well below the exemption percentage and not in a position to provide any social housing at all. You then jumped on this other silly notion that it's the responsibility of a union to provide for the homeless as opposed to the government.

And now you're banging on about Clare Daly and housing in Dublin in general which is well off the topic at hand. "Backed into a corner" my arse. All you're doing is flitting from one tangent to another.

Without getting too off-topic, I imagine Daly's problem was the state bulldozing council properties to make way for private homes that will be sold by developers at unaffordable prices. Something that will exacerbate the housing cross of anything.

Ahh so you missed this then?

[Unite] has just applied for planning permission to convert a building on Dublin's exclusive Merrion Square from an office into six apartments.

And it wants to build an extension out the back to add on another six.

20% of 12 is....

Also Unite are the ones who decided to directly support HSH by apparently letting them organise under Unites Union legilsation (ogles words not mine) so they now are directly linked to the homeless issue. They can't with one hand point at everyone else and call them out for not doing enough and then do nothing themselves either when they have the ability to do so. Its the very definition of hyopcritical.

Im not flitting from tangent to tangent, you claimed the government were not doing enough and I simply pointed out that many members of the opposition are attempting to block new housing projects so its not just about "de gubernment" messing things up.

Also if youd read the articles youd know that new properties being built in the articles i mentioned will have to have 30 per cent social housing, 20 per cent affordable rental, and 50 per cent private homes.

We need private houses just as much as we need social housing the two problems are intrinsically linked as a lack of either squeezes the entire market.

FTA69

Nope I didn't miss anything. If you were actually bothered with the facts of the case you'd notice that the RTE article I posted above states the latest application is for four flats. Likewise the percentage is 10% not 20% (which is irrelevant as there's only 4 flats) So there you are, are Unite supposed to provide 0.4 or 0.8 of a flat are they?

Wheeliebin30

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope I didn't miss anything. If you were actually bothered with the facts of the case you'd notice that the RTE article I posted above states the latest application is for four flats. Likewise the percentage is 10% not 20% (which is irrelevant as there's only 4 flats) So there you are, are Unite supposed to provide 0.4 or 0.8 of a flat are they?

If their so concerned maybe it would set an example by allocating more than 10% of them?

Maybe 1 or 2 apartments to show the government their serious.

But of course that would be too simple ay.

ThisRegard

FTA69 wrote: »

ended up securing provision for 40 odd people they wouldn't have had otherwise

You mean securing provision in hostels that were already in place and due to come on stream anyway?

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope I didn't miss anything. If you were actually bothered with the facts of the case you'd notice that the RTE article I posted above states the latest application is for four flats. Likewise the percentage is 10% not 20% (which is irrelevant as there's only 4 flats) So there you are, are Unite supposed to provide 0.4 or 0.8 of a flat are they?

Okay continue with your pedantry and ignore the facts cus your for some reason obsessed with RTE.....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/unite-plans-for-merrion-square-34195401.html

FTA69

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay continue with your pedantry and ignore the facts cus your for some reason obsessed with RTE.....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/unite-plans-for-merrion-square-34195401.html

Pedantry? You mean stating the facts as opposed to your delusions is now pedantry is it?

Oh Vin, you're slipping now mate - that article is over a year old. The latest planning application is for four flats therefore social housing isn't a viable proposition and nor does it meet the criterion for social housing provision.

They're the current "facts" of the case, next time you go trawling google to find anything and everything to bolster your point at least make sure your links are still relevant.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

Pedantry? You mean stating the facts as opposed to your delusions is now pedantry is it?

Oh Vin, you're slipping now mate - that article is over a year old. The latest planning application is for four flats therefore social housing isn't a viable proposition and nor does it meet the criterion for social housing provision.

They're the current "facts" of the case, next time you go trawling google to find anything and everything to bolster your point at least make sure your links are still relevant.

Fair enough i didnt realise the main building was being changed to a single dwelling.

Still it amounts to 5 properties with 4 in the new building and 1 single house and you can get 20% out of 5 easily enough.

And yes fewer than 10 homes are exempt but ONLY if the developer applies for the exemption.

Again it comes back to the core issue they linked themselves to the homeless issue and then were found to be directly avoiding helping it. If they are so concerned by it why apply for the exemption when they could directly help even with 1 apartment?

You say its not their job to solve it and I agree yet they got directly involved with and organisation that is trying to solve it so this is their own fault

FTA69

Pure spoof. The percentage is 10% not twenty for the umpteenth time. (One would swear you're more interested in having a bash off Unite than dealing with the case at hand.)

Also as Brian pointed out on another post, Unite's development is too small to provide social housing from. The reason they ticked the exemption box is because the entire application would be rejected without that formality. Likewise, and again this needs to be stated, it's not Unite's or anyone else's responsibility to provide social housing or homeless provision. That's the responsibility of the state. If you want to get p*ssed off about the lack of housing then blame the government for that.

Basically this thread was opened with a view to portraying Unite as somehow engaging in legal wrangling to get out of a social obligation. The reality is that they were never obliged to make such provision in the first place.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

Likewise, and again this needs to be stated, it's not Unite's or anyone else's responsibility to provide social housing or homeless provision. That's the responsibility of the state.

Why did Unite get involved with HSH then?

FTA69

VinLieger wrote: »

Why did Unite get involved with HSH then?

Because Unite campaigns in order to shift governments on to a certain platform. HSW aimed to shift government policy on this particular issue.

VinLieger

FTA69 wrote: »

Because Unite campaigns in order to shift governments on to a certain platform. HSW aimed to shift government policy on this particular issue.

Theres a difference between lobbying for workers rights and campaiging against homelessness. Homelessness is something everyone can get involved in and simply pointing out the problems but not doing anything else is lazy.

Again now Unite are directly linked to a homeless campaign they need to hold themselves to a specific standard of how you combat homelessness. Its not like with workers rights where you just stamp and shout the loudest about how unfair things are. You need to get involved directly on the ground and thats the hypocrisy of this they are pointing at the problems while actively not helping on the other end. They have a building that has not been used for 3 years that could have been used for all manner of things to help the homeless problem.

And again im not saying Unite should be the ones solving this, in fact im baffled why they got involved in the first place as this is so far beyond their wheelhouse its ridiculous, but they have got involved and now they are they need to understand that campaigning against homelessness involves on the streets physical action like providing your own vaacant properties for use which is exactly what is being asked of Nama to do,.

IF they really wanted to do something good and long term for the crisis and shame Nama at the same time they could easily go "hey look at use we're great we have this property we could sell but no we are instead using it to actually do some good"

Im even more baffled none of those geniuses did that tbh